"I have considered the appellant's papers and grounds of appeal. No good reason has been given as to why the Court should grant an extension of time and in any event the appeal is without merit. There is no argument made which casts doubt upon the safety of the appellant's conviction. I have considered the appellant's solicitors' and counsel's helpful notes (and the appellant's response of4 June 2021 ) as well as Counsel's original (and clearly correct) advice on merits of appeal against sentence and conviction. Although the appellant's grounds are confused and difficult to follow, it is clear when one considers the proceedings as a whole that there is no arguable error and the trial was fair and the appellant received excellent representation. I will address the specific grounds below. Ground 1 - Use of Romanian Language The appellant claims he was denied a fair trial because he was not able to use his own language. At the start of his evidence in chief the appellant was asked if he understood English and said he did. A court-appointed interpreter was present throughout his evidence (and indeed the trial) to assist him if required. He had access to an interpreter throughout the trial and there was no unfairness to him in the conduct of the trial in English. At no point did he indicate an inability to follow matters to his legal representatives. Ground 2 - Evidence from Phone The appellant suggests that there is evidence from his phone that would have supported his case, and that his solicitor has lied about this. At the PTPH on4th May 2020 the defence indicated that recordings of the incident from Mr Scorcea's phone were available and that the Crown may not wish to proceed with the case once the contents became available. At a hearing on12th June 2020 the defence were ordered to serve any recordings, and translations, on which they intended to rely by29th July 2020 . For reasons explained by second counsel, Mr Lamb, the defence subsequently indicated to the prosecution that they would not be relying on any such evidence (based on advice from first counsel). At what should have been the first day of trial on14th September 2020 , newly instructed counsel Mr Lamb took further instructions from Mr Scorcea who said he that he did now want to rely on the recordings. Copies of the recordings were then made available to the prosecution, along with the translation obtained by the defence. The trial was then adjourned until 28th September. Mr Lamb's note to the Court also makes clear that he acted throughout on the appellant's instructions. Ground 3 - Whether the recording was made on 16th or17th March 2020 In his evidence in chief Mr Scorcea referred to one recording having been made on 16th March and said the other recording related to the incident on the 17th March. In any event, the jury were able to listen to both recordings, and to consider the evidence of Mr Scorcea, Mr Gancef and Mr Putan about what was said and done on both dates. This ground goes nowhere. Ground 4 - the interpretation of the recording presented to the court The appellant takes issue with the translation of the recording that was put before the jury. It seems that the dispute surrounds the translation of a Romanian phrase used by Mr Scorcea in a particular recording - the words were directed at Alexandru Gancef. In Romanian Mr Scorcea says, during an argument about money said to have been owed to him by Mr Gancef: 'Daca nu te omor din bataie vineri, sa ma sculpi in gura. Ca decizia nu o iei tu, ma!'. In the original translation provided by the defence, this was translated as: 'If I won't smack the fuck out of you on Friday, then you can spit in my mouth! It's not up to you to decide bro!'. A translation obtained by the police translated this phrase as: 'You can spit in my mouth if I won't kill you by beating on Friday. As you won't be making the decision.' There were two interpreters present at court when the trial began - one to assist Mr Scorcea and one to assist the witnesses. They were both asked to look at the Romanian transcript of the recording and to translate it. One interpreter said it meant: 'Spit me in mouth if I don't give you a serious beating on Friday. You don't take any decision.' The other interpreter said it translated as: 'If I won't beat you up to death on Friday you can spit me in the mouth, Cause it's not your decision.' They agreed that the Romanian word 'omor' referred to murder/death. The jury were given a transcript that included the original Romanian followed by this explanation: 'A literal translation of this is 'If I won't beat you to death on Friday you can spit me in the mouth. Cause it's not your decision.' Translated idiomatically this would be: 'Spit me in the mouth if I don't give you a serious beating on Friday. You don't take any decisions.'' This form of words was agreed with the defence. Alexandru Gancef said in evidence that he interpreted this particular threat as a threat to seriously beat him up. He said that a further threat - involving killing - was made later on in the hallway when Mr Scorcea was not recording the conversation, and was carrying a machete and a knife. In his summing up, the judge said the following about this aspect of the evidence: 'He (Mr Gancef) was begging him (Mr Scorcea) to leave him alone, and he agreed in cross examination that the threats in the kitchen were more about beating him up rather than killing him, and you will remember there is a section in the transcript where the literal word is 'kill', but the sense of the idiom is 'severely beat.'' (Transcript of summing up, Page 15C). There is no arguable error or unfairness. Ground 5: The accuracy of the translation Addressed above. Ground 6: Defence solicitor did not call a witness The appellant argues that his solicitor did not call a witness. However he does not identify which witness he says his solicitor failed to call. It may be a character witness and Defence counsel, Mr Lamb, has explained his advice to the appellant about the inadvisability of calling character evidence given Mr Scorcea's previous conviction in Spain for attempted murder. Ground 7: Serious mental health issues The appellant submits that he has serious mental health issues and that this was not brought to the attention of the judge or the jury. It was a matter for the defence legal team and the defendant to raise any concerns about Mr Scorcea's mental health before the trial. Mr Scorcea was clearly able to give instructions to his counsel, to follow proceedings and to give evidence on his own behalf. As his Counsel has explained to this Court: 'I was not informed of any formal diagnosis of mental health issues when I assumed conduct of the trial after the usual stage dates had been met. The appellant did at times make threats to dispense with the services of myself and those instructing me but never carried them out…'"
“The only means that the Court has of discouraging unmeritorious applications which waste precious time and resources is by using the powers given to us by Parliament in theCriminal Appeal Act 1968 and theProsecution of Offences Act 1985 .”